COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Many, many Jews have died on suspicion that they had or were plotting to desecrate the communion wafers. Like, Jews are forbidden to even enter a church. And let’s not get into what this or that kind of Jew thinks. For most of history, there was only one kind of Jew in that regard. Personally this is one of my greatest theological struggles. I would even give up sucking toes for the vanilla ones.

But seriously, this is such a big deal to them and such a nothing deal to us. I do note that Israel is the land of wafers. There are more varieties and flavors of wafers in Israel than anywhere else.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/10/08 at 6:46 pm

Your post is quite a bit biased, Mr. Greenberg.

The issue is not Mr. Myers’ critical tone regarding the Catholic response, it is his call for members of the community to steal the consecrated Holy Communion for public desecration.

Do you not see the difference? 

Do you endorse public calls for hate and physical violence against religious communities and sacred traditions?

Really, now…

Comment by Brett on 7/10/08 at 8:29 pm

Yes, Brett, my post is biased. This is a blog. And, no, I do not endorse or condone “public calls for hate and physical violence.” But, in this case, I did not see a call for violence and I don’t think this is worth the Catholic League’s attention. PZ Myers is well-read, but he’s preaching to his choir here, not evangelizing new believers.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/10/08 at 9:44 pm

As an outsider to all of this, I think that the boy was wrong to smuggle the whosiwhatsit out of the church, and that PZ Myer is wrong to butt into the issue. The Catholic League was founded as a public lay representative of the Church long before the internet was invented and became a media source, but it is one now, and it is being used to foment disrespect for people’s feelings and rituals.

If the topic was a Passion Play or an old Mass that denigrates Jews I have something to say, but what possible hook does PZ Myers have with an in-church inoffensive ritual? I sense that he not one of those beaten by a nun in parochial school.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/10/08 at 10:06 pm

Transubstantiation appears weird to outsiders, to non-Catholics.  But those Protestants that mock it forget that they believe that baptism prevents babies from going to hell.  If a few drops of water can change the substance of your soul such that it may be saved, I don’t see what’s so far-fetched about a the wafers.

On the other hand, I’m Jewish so it all seems weird to me. Just sayin’

Comment by Jon on 7/10/08 at 10:29 pm

The omission speaks volumes about this entire blog entry. More excited to condemn the Catholic League, than the juvenile actions of a “professor”, the author loses the plot. “Oops! I forgot to mention Myers said he is going to publicly desecrate a Eucharist. D’oh!” Give me a break…

Comment by Quite an Omission on 7/10/08 at 10:30 pm

Fair enough. I deserve that.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/10/08 at 10:47 pm

Hello Mr. Greenberg,

If you do not see public desecration of a sacred object/tradition as violence…then I am not sure what is.

What if he was calling for the taking and then the public desecration of the sacred scrolls from a synagogue to protest the plight of the Palestinians?

I don’t think you would be as forgiving.

Comment by Brett on 7/10/08 at 10:49 pm

Actually, I am a practicing Christian whose mother was raised Catholic. I would consider both acts a hate crime but not violence. But I fear we are getting hung up on semantics.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/10/08 at 10:54 pm

OK, a hate crime - i.e. a form of psychological violence.

Comment by Brett on 7/10/08 at 11:12 pm

My last comment, which I left before running out for dinner, was a weak attempt to show my personal connection to communion. My apologies.

What I should have said to convey the significance I place I this oh-so-meaningful sacrament is that taking communion has long been my favorite part of a church service, an opportunity each week to reflect on the sacrifice that paid for my sins, a time to clean my heart and mind, lest I eat judgment on myself.

“This is the body of Christ, broken for you,” a deacon usually says when I dip the bread in the wine.

Unlike Catholics, though, I do not believe I am eating Jesus’ physical body when I consume a cracker (coincidentally, matzo at my home church); I am following his instructions at the Last Supper to eat and remember him.

But what is at issue here is not whether I revere the Eucharist—I do—but just what should be done when those who don’t seek to denigrate it, by actions real or perceived. I don’t think it warrants an organization like the Catholic League getting involved. But you’re free to disagree.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/10/08 at 11:14 pm

But that’s the actual founding mission of the Catholic League. What do think they should do, issue a press release every morning that says “We forgive everybody for everything! God loves you! We love you! Yay!”? If the Pope did that I might understand. Do you (the general Christian you) or anyone you know do that?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/11/08 at 6:25 am

It’s just a cracker.  They are mass produced in a factory and you can buy them online.  Why should anyone pay homage to such an absurd tale that a cracker is made sacred by casting a spell over it?

Comment by Doug on 7/11/08 at 6:31 am

That’s not the subject of this discussion. I have no feeling for these crackers (when did they stop calling them ‘wafers’?) myself, but this is clearly a ‘live and let live’ situation. Every fraternity or club or even communal facility has its rules of conduct and it is up to them to assign the importance to them. You could blow your nose in a comic book, but it might upset smom people at a comic book convention.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/11/08 at 8:30 am

It beats me why anyone should want to defend a remnant of medieval superstition from the mockery which, on the merits, it certainly deserves.  It may be objected that hordes of people participate in this silliness, which, ostensibly, justifies some kind of official guarantee that it will not be derided.  By the same logic, however, the fact that millions of Moslems believe that the Koranic dogma is beyond criticism justifies a death sentence against Salman Rushdie and the actual murder of Theo van Gogh.

I’m afraid that Catholics will have to take their lumps like anyone else, recognizing that what makes Bill Donahue squirm has just as much constitutional protection as his own fervor.

Comment by Fossil on 7/11/08 at 9:31 am

The seeds of your illogic are contained within your post. When the Pope had troops, and when the Catholics rampaged around slaughtering people not least the Jews, and when Bill Donahue issues a fatwa to stab or behead anyone you have a point. I made a point about the boys throwing rocks at the Amish, people who I am sure you also feel ‘deserve’ mockery. Yet from the outside you can’t possibly appreciate the quality of the lifestyle that does not include intrusive media and technology and lowest-common-denominator values and pop culture etc. Neither do I to that extent, but as a MOR Orthodox Jew in America I do to some extent. Much of your own culture and lifestyle must include indefensible belief systems and superstitions, that is values with no basis or even a negative one.

Anyway, Bill Donahue is not the government. It is not up to him to tolerate every slithering lowlife who has a need to fart his dysfunctional feelings into the blogosphere. You could make the same case for PZ Myers to take his lumps and defend constitutional protection for the Catholic League, if you could thionkout of the teensy box you are in.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/11/08 at 9:50 am

I wonder how the Jews of the Old Testament would have reacted if someone threatened to use the Ark as a toilet?  After all it was just a box. 

That the Professor knows the Eucharist is of incredible importance in the Catholic Faith (indeed it is known as the source and summit of our Faith) and threatens to desecrate it shows his bigotry.

That he considers it to be a cracker does not matter.  What matters is what Catholics think it to be.

By the way, it is not a medieval superstition.  That it becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ has been documented since the very beginnings of Christianity.  There are writings from the 1st century that show christians believed this.

Comment by Elizabeth on 7/11/08 at 11:31 am

Even if this is the Jewish Journal, I would apreciate your leaving the Ark out of this, as the Romans were the last to loot and destroy the Temple, and their heirs the early Byzantine Christians devoted much of their attention to devise ways to harass and oppress the pesky Jews who unaccountably survived the expectations of the Christians.

Furthermore the Jews have always been entirely tolerant of the religious practices of others outside of the rather small reservation of the Holy Land under a Torah society.

But I digress. My real point is that even if Myers is a Jewish type name, and I am not going to try to research if he emerged from a technically Jewish uterus right this minute, it is a waste of time to associate him with the Jewish ark. If you stuck to other contemporary objects of ritualitic use such as tribal totems, the Book of Mormon, the Blarney Stone and so on, the point would be made.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/11/08 at 1:24 pm

“But those Protestants that mock it forget that they believe that baptism prevents babies from going to hell”

You got your facts wrong. Catholics are the ones who baptize babies. Anyway the cracker isn’t Jesus, not even if you really, REALLY believe it.

Comment by RainaWeather on 7/11/08 at 2:14 pm

Just for the record, atheism is also an unscientific belief system. Not that I care what you think in a personal way, but it is good to lay that on the table, out in the open. All we can do is play the odds, and me and mine have the best hand in the house.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/11/08 at 4:08 pm

The President of the United States today just threw the planet into the cosmic wastebasket by leaving global warming to be dealt with by the next administration, and you are worried about a wafer.

Yes, I was taught what “the eucharist” means. It’s a piece of bread. Get over it. “Violence”? Get real!

Comment by Kristine on 7/11/08 at 8:02 pm

The people focusing on PZ’s attacks on the Eucharist are missing the point.

There is no Constitutional right to deliver death threats.  “Live and let live” fails to apply when people are saying that someone should die for their act of sacrilege.  People should be tolerant of such intolerance and blind rage?  Is that the “belief system” we should respect?  One which becomes insane when its allegedly all-powerful God is touched by an infidel?

PZ was responding to the response to the smuggling of the wafer.  As if God can’t take care of Himself.

The response to the smuggling was unbelievably vicious for believers in a God who teaches love and forgiveness.  That those same alleged Christians now try to pretend to be victims of PZ’s non-action (just “a joke and a protest”) simply demonstrates that the style of worship (communion) is more important than what Jesus actually wanted people to learn.

“Live and let live” didn’t work for Jesus in the Temple, and it still doesn’t work when the other guy has expressed a desire to see you dead.  Catholics terrorized the college student into doing the right thing, and they’re trying to terrorize PZ into an apology (and/or joblessness), but in doing all that they have effectively spit right into their own Bibles.

That is what deserves mockery.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/11/08 at 9:50 pm

“Miracle of transubstantiation”??  It’s STILL just a cracker.  The reaction is way over the top, similar to that of the infamous Danish cartoons.

Comment by NP on 7/11/08 at 10:58 pm

Mocking Holy scripture may have consequences folks even those who “trash” the New Testament!

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Maybe He was kidding-huh?

Also, how about this—1 Corinthians 11:29 “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Comment by Bill Robberson on 7/12/08 at 12:26 pm

BTW-for those of you who believe there is no God-then accept the fact that your mom,dad,relatives,spouse and children are nothing more than “grasshoppers”. Smart ones for sure but “just grasshoppers”.

Maybe you are more than that and the word for this concept is “Hope”.

Comment by Bill Robberson on 7/12/08 at 1:56 pm

Hey Bill, your efforts to justify your faith in doctrine by quoting doctrine is circular logic and doesn’t justify your position.

And your lack of understanding of evolution is pathetic. Our ancestors are not ‘grasshoppers’ we just share a common ancestor with grasshoppers before we split off in evolutionary directions. This is not a belief, it is the truth given the best evidence we currently have, and wont change no matter how much we wish for it.

One mans cartoon is another mans cracker, this is ridiculous.

Comment by Eric on 7/12/08 at 2:39 pm

Eric, I respect you position please do not demean mine. By “grasshoppers” you well know I am not dealing with evolution per se, I’m just pointing out that regardless of the “higher” form of humans over insects, without God our loved ones are without Hope after death. I choose to believe otherwise and respect your choice as well.

Comment by Bill Robberson on 7/12/08 at 3:04 pm

This is amusing.  We are like worms when compared to the godless universe, and we are like worms when compared to the Glory of God.  Or grasshoppers, if you prefer.

“Hope” fails to distinguish either one, since no matter what you do or believe, you’ll never rise above worm-dom when compared to God.

Hope and purpose, instead, are what you make of them, which won’t come from any book, because there is no one-size-fits-all answer.  If you can’t figure out these things for yourself, then there is truly no hope for you.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/12/08 at 3:24 pm

Teh validity of the ritual is not the topic. It was the appropriateness of the Catholic League to comment on the sacrilege and the defence of it. But why doesn’t this kind of thinking go double for PZ Myers. This is America, in principle we should live and let live and mind our own business. Can’t he get upset about Muslim violations of godliness. Every time a rumor goes out about a Koran in Guantanamo, Muslims die in riots around the world. Maybe Myers doesn’t care deep down, or maybe he doesn’t want to get stabbed by someone more violent than Bill Donahue.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/12/08 at 10:25 pm

Again, only the suicidal live and let live when the other guy wants to murder.  A lot of time and energy has been expended in decrying PZ Myers’ intent (not action, but intent), and no similar effort has been made to talk about the evil of the death threats made against Myers and Webster Cook.  It is this hypocrisy that has made the Catholic League and other like-minded people laughingstocks among the atheists and the rational.

And speaking of hypocrisy, Ben Plonie: saying we should live and let live but then wondering why Myers doesn’t complain about Muslim idiocy is itself hypocritical.  Besides, Myers _has_ derided Islam.  Suggesting that he has not (or will not) is speaking from ignorance.  And suggesting that he doesn’t because he’s a coward is nothing more than a personal insult towards him.

If you’re not going to live and let live, Ben Plonie, why should PZ Myers do so?

Comment by Dave W. on 7/13/08 at 9:34 am

I will not argue someone else’s theology with them.  I am however outraged that the keeping of a Host in a plastic baggy for a week is being compared to taking Christ hostage.  What about the priests who took kids hostage and RAPED them?  To this survivor of childhood sexual abuse, the two don’t compare at all.  Where was the outrage when priests were discovered?  What happened to them?  They were transferred to other parishes in order to cover up what they did.  There was very little outrage on the part of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  Instead, we got apologetics.  I would suggest that some priorities and ethics are a bit mixed up there.

There is also the matter of whether or not Webster Cook was manhandled by a woman during the incident in the chapel.  That will be decided perhaps at a later date.  Meanwhile, the Communion wafer could have been auctioned off and the proceeds used to pay a few of the survivors of priestly molestation.  Oh dear, now I am being sacrilegious. 

spike

Comment by radical sapphoq on 7/13/08 at 12:55 pm

I certainly am letting him live. I never even heard of him before this. I have not logged onto his blog and annoyed or argued with him. PZ Myers is not responding to me or people like me.

My point is primarily that Myers is no more qualified to trumpet his personal judgements about others’ deepest held beliefs, and support for others aggressively challenging them, and threats to distress others than the Catholic League. The Catholic League is reactive, not pro-active.

Secondarily, that in my admittedly spot checked reading of his blog he may have derided but has never threatened to dishonor the artifacts of any Islamic community. I stand to be corrected on that but as it stands now I can interpret that as I wish. And btw, I notice that Myers works at the U of Muinnesota, and not at St. Johns or Fordham or Georgetown.

Myers appears to be a person who protesteth too much. And as I mentioned earlier, “atheism is also an unscientific belief system”. I did discover a clue in my travels in his blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/poor_baby.php
A boy making a speech in high school showed a Bible, called it a ‘piece of crap’, saying “‘I’m going to do this because I can. I’m going to do something that your stupid, little minds aren’t going to be able to comprehend” and started ripping it up.

Myers concludes, “... the kids at that school learned a valuable lesson: nothing is sacred.”

That is the heart of the matter. This is the key to Myers’ outlook. People of religious belief do feel variations of the sacredness of things. Some would say that human life is sacred, though without a framework, chip away at that via abortion and euthenasia. Even Myers would probably tell you that free expression and skepticism is sacred, without using the word. Sacredness, sacraments, we are talking about one’s values in another form.

Once again, do what you want but not in somebody else’s clubhouse, unless the club has made itself your enemy. Jews feel so strongly about some aspects of Chistianity that they will not enter a church. That is not the same as entering a church and sabotaging the service.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/13/08 at 2:49 pm

So you’re telling me that publicly passing judgement on a PZ Myers, calling him a coward, complaining that he’s not an equal-opportunity blasphemer and lying about his intentions is really keeping your nose out of his business?  Are you just “playing the odds” and hoping that he won’t read this thread?  Or do you think that ponitifcating on how he ought to act is fine so long as you don’t do it on his blog?

Really, the heart of the matter is that you don’t seem to grasp the difference between valuing something and holding that something sacred.  Skepticism and free expression _should_ be valued highly by everyone, but they’re certainly not sacred.  If free expression were sacred, there would be no laws against yelling “fire!” in a crowed theater, nor would slander and libel be torts.  If skepticism were sacred then skeptics would take it as a personal affront every time someone knocked on wood or held their breath past a graveyard.  Such is the silliness of holding thing sacred (aside, of course, from Catholic idolatry).

So the question is whether someone who _does_ hold something sacred also has the right to act on that ridiculous belief to deliver death threats.  If I hold my TV remote to be sacred, does it give me the right to beat you if you were to touch it?  Your lack of expressed outrage at the over-the-top reaction of some Catholics suggests that you’d be fine with that.

And as I said before, atheism isn’t a belief system at all.  For many of us, atheism is the most-scientific position we can find, based on the replicable evidence presented for the existence of God: none at all.  Lack of belief isn’t a belief.

Last, neither Webster Cook nor PZ Myers have or have expressed a desire to enter a church and sabotage the service.  But even if one of them had said, “let’s go sabotage a church service,” would the threat of death be an appropriate response in 21st century America?  Nevermind that, would the threat of death be an appropriate response from anyone who worships a god who teaches love and forgiveness?  Was the physical assault on Webster Cook at the service itself an appropriate response from such people in this allegedly enlightened age?

Comment by Dave W. on 7/13/08 at 5:27 pm

I hope Myers reads this thread, though I imagine that’s unlikely.

One of the better commentaries I’ve read on this ordeal comes from the Friendly Atheist. I don’t agree with his opinion that belief in transubstantiation is “absurd,” but I appreciate his criticism of both Myers’ desire to desecrate a communion wafer and the Catholic League’s need to get involved. Read it here:

trying to obtain a consecrated communion wafer for the sole purpose of destroying it serves absolutely no positive purpose. Now, you’re just trying to piss off Catholics.

Why bother? What good does it do to rub this in their face?

Does anyone really think that this act will cause any Catholic to say, “Oh! You are right! That is a crazy belief! Thanks, PZ!”

... Similarly, you’re got going to win any Christian converts by burning a Bible while roasting marshmallows over it.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/13/08 at 5:43 pm

Hemant Mehta (at Friendly Atheist) is wrong about PZ’s purpose.  It’s not to get Catholics to see that the wafer is just a wafer, it was a protest (and a joke) against the treatment of Webster Cook.  Mehta’s criticism therefore misses the mark.

(His reader’s characterization of the Catholic League as professional offendees was a good one, though.  The world could definitely benefit from having fewer victims, and so it should be a priority for us all to marginalize those who would pretend to be victims at the drop of a hat.  Less mud in the water would allow us to better see the people who need help first.)

Comment by Dave W. on 7/13/08 at 7:28 pm

Dave W.
It is a bit bizarre for me to be in the position of defending Catholics and their behavior, but I see it in the role of amicus curiae, as defending the right of the freedom of association, of privacy, of the pursuit of happiness, and these are not only individual feedoms but communal. I no more believe in or agree with Catholic theology and ritual than PZ Myer, but a sincere practicing Catholic is a joy to associate with. A practicing atheist on the other hand is a person with a negative program. It brings to mind
that old bumper sticker - “My God is alive - sorry about yours”

For me this whole incident is not personal. I have told you I don’t know this Myers, though I definitely have a poor impression of him. If he had the confidence of his position he could make a point without name dropping other belief systems. I have not called him a coward, those are words you put in my mouth but I did say that I see no evidence of his courage, intellectual or otherwise. Myers put his business in the public domain, so I am certainly not in his personal business. My comment about Muslims has to do with that both qualitatively and quantitatively there is more death and more threats than from the Catholics in this age, and certainly from the Catholic League which is basically a civil rights organization modeled after any other such organization.

Your sophistry regarding values and holding sacred is what they call ‘talmudic’ when Jews do it. The story here is not about death threats but about provocation and baiting to the point that people lose their tempers. That doesn’t work well even for teenagers, in adults it is just evidence of unresolved emotional problems. Point being that people like Myers have no positive point of view or program that does not involve putting down others.

You say, “For many of us, atheism is the most-scientific position we can find”. That ‘many of us’ is well stated. Because most of you wouldn’t know a scientific position from a can of Coors Lite, and the rest of you just don’t think into the issue that deeply. The fact is, there is no replicable evidence for the development of material existence, atomic and chemical organization, and life processes either. Or put simply, the universe is not self-explanatory, and its existence as such is impossible in the absence of intervention, or the dreaded ID. This blog may or may not be the place to clobber itout, but I promise you I can out-clobber any linking you may attempt to prominent skeptics, atheists and other such whistlers in the dark.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/13/08 at 10:50 pm

“A practicing atheist.”  That’s a tellingly broad brush you’re painting with, Mr. Plonie.  Perhaps in your world, all of the “practicing” atheists walk around chanting, “there is no god” all day long, but the vast majority simply don’t bother.  Atheists don’t worship a non-god, nor do they worship the absence of god.  They simply live their lives without god.  I, for one, only think about religious issues when things like Cook-versus-the-Catholics come up.

And the story is very much about the death threats, and how the people crying for PZ to lose his job are giving tacit encouragement to the people calling for PZ’s (and Webster Cook’s) head on a spike by not condemning their behavior.  Where was the “provocation” and “baiting” when Webster Cook was actually assaulted? (I note with curiosity that you’ve failed to answer the simple question about whether his assault was appropriate.)

Your tu quoque argument regarding the Muslims is rejected (again).  Whether they are the cause of more death and/or death threats is irrelevant to the hypocrisy of the silent Catholics.  It is nothing more than a red herring, trying to distract away from the real issue.

And “people like Myers” have just as positive a program as the Catholics, Protestants and other theists do.  More positive, in fact, because atheists are not made to feel guilty about simply being human.  The idea that one can lead a moral, purposeful life without the oppressive yoke of religion is a positive message, indeed, and only puts down the tiny minority of those theists who’ve turned their whole lives over to their religion.

As to your last points, your ignorance of the replicable evidence supporting current scientific theories in cosmology, physics, abiogenesis and biology does not comprise an argument in favor of a deity.  Your bald assertion regarding the necessity of “intervention” is thus rejected, as are your taunts (your own provocations and baiting?).  But you’re correct that this isn’t the proper venue, and so I will invite you over to the Skeptic Friends Network (link’s my name, registration is quick) to discuss it (or any other part of this) further.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/13/08 at 11:58 pm

I rather enjoyed this thread. Is it through?

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 7/15/08 at 4:37 pm

Not as far as I am concerned. All the discussion on the net on this topic (not as much as you might expect) resembles this one. In other words, a waste of time in which people hold fast to their preconceived ideas and transparently misunderstand each other. I could just answer point-by-point again, but I would rather wait till I have a few minutes to target the real issues, not that I expect it to do any good.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/15/08 at 6:58 pm

Dunno, Mr. Greenberg.  It was a nice blog post, on a not-so-simple subject.  Could be lots of interesting discussion.

Hope you don’t mind too much that I invited someone away from your place.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/15/08 at 6:58 pm

Not a problem about being invited. Registering on skepticfriends.org would be like patronizing a gay bar (‘not that there’s anything wrong with that’) to discuss lifestyle choices. The god issue requires maximum openmindedness, courage and integrity to discuss. We can just talk about what we have learned, what we know, what makes sense, what we trust and so on for this discussion.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/15/08 at 11:13 pm

Frankly, Mr. Plonie, I’m not getting a feeling of openmindedness, courage, or integrity from you based upon what you chose for comparison purposes.  From my experience, you _should_ go to the gay bar for such a discussion because they already know all the arguments _against_ their lifestyle, and they know the “pro” side far better than the straights ever will.

As far as the subject in which you specifically _challenged_ me, Mr. Plonie, this blog (and this particular blog post) certainly doesn’t seem to be the right place, because the subject matter is all wrong.  If you’d prefer a more “neutral” venue than the SFN, then please suggest one.

However, since I’m a Skeptic Friends Network administrator, I can enforce whatever rules we can agree to in a special thread over there, just for the purpose of you “out-clobbering” me in such a debate.  I’m game.  My email address is available on almost every one of my posts over there (and on the “Staff” page, as well), so just send me a note telling me what kind of ground-rules you’d like to see implemented, and we can talk without clogging Mr. Greenberg’s bandwidth.

And if he’s agreeable to it, we can link from here directly over there, so nobody misses any of the action.

Just to re-iterate, you effectively challenged me to a debate on the necessity of an intelligent agency’s intervention in the creation and/or evolution of the universe, matter and life.  I am willing to participate in such a debate, in writing.  I am waiting for you, Mr. Plonie, to tell me when and where (and under what guidelines).

You threw down the gauntlet, Mr. Plonie, and I’m willing to pick it up.  I just don’t want to mess up Mr. Greenberg’s lawn any more than I already have.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/15/08 at 11:50 pm

Mr. Plonie,

I take your week-long silence as meaning that you had and have no intention to follow through on the challenge that you casually flung my way.

Am I correct?

Comment by Dave W. on 7/22/08 at 8:48 pm

(Sigh) no, just that I am not that enthusiastic about it. See “...in which people hold fast to their preconceived ideas and transparently misunderstand each other”. Fine, let’s make some progress.

1) You entered this discussion by deploring the violence and terror campaign conducted against young Webster Cook and Myers, and challenging the world to join you in this. Ridiculous. In spite of deliberately trying to stir a hornet’s nest, somehow the plucky lad escaped from the Church intact, evaded the Catholic death squads for a whole week, did not go to any authorities, did not disclose any actual messages of death threats, and so we have only his wiseass word for it. Well “DON’T TASE ME, BRO!” Speculation has it that any notes he got may have said “You’ll burn [in hell] for this” and the like.

2) And PZ Myers is asking for anything he gets. Contrary to your characterization of atheists as relaxed, genteel freethinkers minding their own business, Myers is a common type of classic fundamentalist, evangelical, ultra-Orthodox, Pentacostal snake-handlin’, tongue-speakin’, testifyin’ born again atheist. At the very least he has made a business decision to piss off as many people as possible in exchange for notoriety.

3) I had to look up ‘tu quoque’ but now that I have it has nothing to do with ‘the real issue’. I brought it in with reference to the defense of Myers as a humanist with integrity. My point is that a humanist activist would do better to go where the inhumanity is, rather than fasten onto a little stinker of a non-story from Florida.

4) it is logically impossible for an atheist to lead a ‘moral, purposeful’ life. An atheist necessarily has to be amoral, and purpose as well is relative. Bertrand Russel found it impossible to derive a morality out of philosophy and formal logic; if anyone else has succeeded I would like to know, and in any case it would not be the Myers’ of the world. Any such morality is an echo of religion in denial. You may well do well and do good and be nice, but there is no overriding principle to prevent being otherwise.

5) My analogy of activist atheism to a gay bar is apt and inoffensive, or should be to one without a basis for any negative association to it. What I am saying is that the activist atheist is not actually objective on the issue at all. Like the patrons in a gay bar, he is irrationally and emotionally invested in the propriety and institutionalization of his position. I will say that you are very well spoken and mild here; the language on the skeptics blog is mean, dumb, vicious and profane. Or maybe just the samples I saw. What is the purpose served in the hooting and cackling and cursing and ridiculing of every religious figure and statement? I have my belief system, and I am an atheist with regard to most others. I give it to the Catholics good when appropriate, but I accord them plain respect and tolerance otherwise.

6) If you want an example of an atheist with integrity, look to Sir Antony Flew. He gets short shrift on your forum, but he really shouldn’t. He is literally the godfather (sorry, make that the progenitor) of the modern atheist movement. Now that he has become a theist upon learning the “most-scientific position” he could find, under the Socratic principle “following the argument where it leads”, the atheists are calling him senile.

7) Just so as not to neglect the gorilla in the room, I will now say something balanced in a manner that I feel you will not disagree with.
A - God (in the Biblical sense of positive infinite eternal purposeful designer, creator, sustainer, judge and so on) is EITHER a reality, the reality, our reality - OR really does not exist at all.

Never mind which we think it is for now. It is what it is. Millions of words of argumentation and philosophy cannot change what is. If God is real, all of the fine philosophy and verbiage and discussions are meaningless. If there is no god, all of the equally fine stories and events and perceptions and values and directives are likewise meaningless.

OK so far?

B - There is no way using logic alone and facts and evidence from the natural universe to prove the issue one way or the other:
Overlooking for now the miracles and prophecies in the Bible, the most ardent believer cannot prove the existence of God. We (bible Jews) say that humans cannot directly apprehend God and live, or let’s say bounded by our material character. Our sphere of intersection is in the imperceptable, the abstract, the imagination placed under discipline and refinement and strengthening. God is by definition outside of the system, any system. It would be like Doonesbury having awareness of the existence and points of reference of Gary Trudeau.

Conversely, the most intelligent and advanced and knowledgable atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God. What he might attempt is to challenge the authenticity or integrity of the Bible on various points, and there is a lively constant debate on that.

You may disagree, but work with me for the next point. Given B -, insofar as our human part in the debate . . .
C - The question of God boils down to ‘Yes, No, or Maybe’, and Maybe does not count for practical purposes.

Some might call it a leap of faith, but I still think we could call it playing the odds. There’s that old Tree of Knowledge coming back to haunt us.

Coming full circle, it is what I said earlier; “the universe is not self-explanatory, and its existence as such is impossible in the absence of intervention, or the dreaded ID.” I say this without elaboration or detail here, but as above, if true then there is approaching zero odds for the non-existence of God.

The opposite position is that the universe (necessarily including “material existence, atomic and chemical organization, and life processes”) is indeed self explanatory at reasonable odds, and by Occam’s Razor we may discard the Creationist naarative for material existence.

And I said “The fact is, there is no replicable evidence for the development of material existence, atomic and chemical organization, and life processes ...”

And you attribute that to my ignorance. I stand by what I said. We shall see, but it is now past 1AM in my time zone, so with that summary of where the discussion stands I say good night.
TBC

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/23/08 at 12:33 am

Mr. Plonie,

(Some sub-letters and one number added by me.)

1) You have exemplified a person holding fast to preconceived ideas by giving weight to speculation and name-calling with regard to Webster Cook.  I see no evidence that he “deliberately” tried to “stir a hornet’s nest,” nor any evidence that the worst he received was a “you’ll burn [in Hell] for this” note (the fact that Myers is getting much, much worse suggests otherwise).  Your phrase, “Catholic death squads,” is nothing but emotional hyperbole.  If you seek to make progress, you’ll have to do better than this.

2) You say, “And PZ Myers is asking for anything he gets.”  Ah, the wife-beater’s defense.  You compound your error by turning my highly qualified statements about atheists into a generalization I never made, and then you miss Myers’ intent by smugly suggesting that he’s doing what he’s doing for nothing more than “notoriety.”  Again, progress cannot be made when you’re holding yourself back with this outright nonsense.

3) You have no standing to dictate what Myers’ priorities should be, and have made no serious argument as to why they should be other than they are, and thus you have no cause to fault Myers for failing to live to your standards.  To use your logic in that regard, I should berate you for wasting your time commenting on this blog, rather than doing something I might consider more important.

4) If Russell attempted to derive an ethic from only philosophy and logic, then he was a fool, because ethics are social constructs and so depend upon empiricism.  That you take Russel’s failure to do what can’t be done as evidence that atheists must be amoral is ridiculous.  The only “overriding principle” required to live a moral life is a sense of empathy, which Myers assuredly has or he wouldn’t have gotten upset at the way Cook has been treated.  Besides which, morality doesn’t “prevent” anything, just like secular law doesn’t prevent murder.

5A) Your description of a hypothetical patron of a gay bar as “irrationally and emotionally invested in the propriety and institutionalization of his position” is quite bigoted.  Ditto for your application of the same description to atheists (even to Myers, who most definitely does not seek to institutionalize atheism - secularism isn’t atheism).

5B) When one demands respect for any unsupportable (as you agree) belief, one is being ridiculous (as in “deserving of ridicule”).  Surely you are familiar with Russell’s Teapot.  The Catholics (in this situation) are being especially INtolerant, and nobody should have any obligation to accord such intolerance with respect or tolerance.  That sort of hypocrisy, coming from the smugness of those who think they’re _right_ to do as they did, deserves nothing but contempt.  If, on the other hand, they had accorded Cook with the respect and tolerance that the Bible teaches, you and I wouldn’t be having this discussion because Myers wouldn’t have gone for the throat.

6) Anthony Flew is, by your own admission, no longer “an atheist with integrity.”  But you seem to have missed out on a lot of that story, as Flew is no theist (and disavowed that “most-scientific position” nonsense) but a deist chasing after a mistaken apprehension of Einstein’s words, and he’s failed to grasp the ludicrousness of the Philip Johnson Award recently given him.  Flew seems rather intent on ignoring the PR role he is passively playing for the Christian Dominionists.  But either way he’s nothing more than a figurehead, and not a role model.  Integrity would have to include not blowing off one’s critics with silly arguments, and so Flew fails to be “an atheist with integrity” on both counts.  Whether he’s senile or not I couldn’t say, but his deeds and words are certainly not consistent with having a high priority on rationality.

7A) I will grant that God either exists or doesn’t exist in the same way that I would grant that Ben Plonie either exists or doesn’t exist.

7B) Proof is for the realm of formal logics (such as mathematics), not science.  If your intention was to make use of such a standard, then the inability to prove or disprove God’s existence only means that God is an undecidable proposition, in which case God’s existence cannot logically be the premise for any further thought (including morality).  If, on the other hand, you only intended to evoke science’s relative levels of certainty, then the fact that no replicable evidence in favor of God’s existence has been discovered in the last umpty-ump centuries of dedicated searching suggests that a tentative conclusion that God does not exist is warranted.

7C) For _practical_ purposes, “maybe” is equivalent to “no.”

7D) Your assertion that “the universe is not self-explanatory” remains unsupported by evidence or argument, and does not logically follow from your three prior premises.  On that basis alone, I cannot grant your “if true” clause.  Furthermore, your argument that intelligent intervention is required to explain some aspects of the universe is an attempt to prove the existence of God, which you (at 7A) asserted is impossible.

7E) Science is the process of getting the universe to explain itself, as best we can understand it.  Humans might verbalize those explanations, but the ultimate arbiter of whether an explanation is correct is the universe itself.

7F) If you’re trying to garner a favorable judgement from God by “playing the odds,” then your idea of God must include His being susceptible to such tricks, a rather insulting image.

8) Attributing your statement to ignorance was me giving you the benefit of a doubt.  If you’d prefer, the other choice is that you deny the evidence.  After all, if you simply had a different interpretation of the evidence you wouldn’t have suggested that it doesn’t exist.  (The plasma cosmologists, for example, do not deny the replicable evidence of the cosmic microwave background, they simply disagree with mainstream cosmologists over what explanations best describe that evidence.)  What’s most interesting, though, is that you didn’t ask something like, “what evidence do you think I’m ignorant of?”  Instead you simply re-asserted its absence.  I hope that’s not what you consider open-mindedness.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/23/08 at 11:46 am

What this Catholic has gleaned from this discussion is that the bigotry of Jewish anti-Catholicism is alive and well.

It used to be said:  “When they came for the Blacks, the Jews, the Catholics…I said nothing. And when they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me.”

Well, now, everyone is coming for the Catholics.  Will the Jews stand up? or will they wait til someone comes for them?

God have mercy.

Comment by Fr. J. on 7/24/08 at 3:07 pm

If someone stole a Torah scroll and defacted on it in a public way, wouldnt the Jewish Anti-Defamation League get involved?  You better believe they would.  And I as a Catholic would support them.  But, no if it is a Catholic anti-defamation organization—instead of support it, you mock it.

Incredible.  Do you never consider if the shoe were on the other foot? Ever?

Comment by Fr. J. on 7/24/08 at 3:58 pm

I wouldn’t support any sort of anti-defamation group if it were calling for someone to get fired, encouraging harrassment and enciting religious extremism over that someone doing nothing more than demonstrating his contempt for religious ideas in general.  Bill Donohue is going just that far overboard, however, and so pretty much mocks himself.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/24/08 at 9:35 pm

Fr. J.
Let’s not be hasty. While I get your sentiments, kindly do not fall into the nasty old habit of maligning the Jews. Most Jews would never even notice this issue, I don’t call ex-Jews who are atheists Jewish (not being into racial theory), and those that even think about it would generally be tolerant and supportive of the sensitivities of Catholics even without subscribing to their substance.

Although this is a blog on Jewish Journal, the blogger is not Jewish, not one of the commenters on the thread other than me is identifiably Jewish, and I am supporting your cause for the very reasons you have stated. Of course, Webster Cook is not Jewish, and PZ Myer was raised Lutheran. People of genuine moral character should stick together.

If someone stole a Torah scroll and desecrated it (not like it has never happened, I am not sure the Anti-Defamation League actually would get involved. Unlike the Catholic League, they do not consider themselves as lay leadership for the faith, it works a little differently for us. I would personally hope that the local chapter of what is left of the Jewish Defense League and the like would introduce the perpetrator to various hard surfaces.

So rather than abuse the image of the Torah scroll, let’s propose defecating into the urn containing the ashes of PZ Myers’ mother, or into the future career job prospects of Webster Cook. Wait a minute, he already did that himself now that employers are Googling for news and information relating to prospective employees. All hope is not lost, it is possible they wouldn’t bother to do that to hire a short-order cook. Cook? Get it? Cook? Never mind.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/25/08 at 9:12 am

Dave W.  You are simply engaging in blame the victim.  I’m sure you dont like Bill Donohue.  I dont either.  But his antics are to bring attention to an evil act.  It is a real act of cunning to turn the attention from PZ Meyers to Bill Donohue.  Who is the greater offender against decency?

Ben Plonie, I think the image of defacating on the Torah is exactly the appropriate reference here.  If it makes you squeamish, then you have an idea how Catholic feel.

Comment by Fr. J. on 7/25/08 at 9:22 am

“Blame the victim?”  That’s what Bill Donohue was doing to Webster Cook, but you apparently think Cook committed “an evil act,” Fr. J.  Go figure that so few who try to claim the moral high ground cannot admit that Cook shouldn’t have received the treatment he did.

And it’s obviously Bill Donohue who is “the greater offender against decency,” since he’s the one spouting earthly lies and trying to incite a fatwa, all via press release.  If Bill Donohue hadn’t chosen to ignore the teaching of his Saviour with regard to Cook’s mistake, PZ Myers probably wouldn’t have said a word.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/25/08 at 10:23 am

I agree with Fr. J.

Comment by Anna on 7/25/08 at 7:28 pm

By the way, like communion wafers, the Bible and the Qu’ran, Torah scrolls can be purchased by anyone with a credit card.

To me, that’s keeping something sacred in all the wrong ways.

Getting angry about desecrating any of them tells me that the symbol is more important to the angered person than the meaning behind the symbol.  That suggests a weak faith at best, and idolatry at worst.

Does anyone really think that PZ would issue death threats and/or call for someone to be fired if his mother’s ashes were violated?  I have a feeling the worst he would do is call the police to report the trespassing, vandalism and/or theft required to perform such an act.

Hey, when was the last time Bill Donohue issued a press release about Andres Serrano?

Comment by Dave W. on 7/25/08 at 11:21 pm

Fr J
The reason your example of defecating on the Torah is not appropriate here is that it serves no purpose and makes no point. Once again, I am the only Jew here and person who does care, and I have supported your view. The non-religious and non-Jews here cannot feel the outrage, and the atheists would happily defecate on the Torah anytime. My example of an urn with ashes is what I came up with as something PZ Myers might care about. Or perhaps his Doctoral diploma. There is no reason to think that Myers would not resort to violence or to protect those items. In contrast, neither Myers nor Cook has lost anything but reputation for their part in this farce.

Don’t worry, Dave W., I will grade you masters Thesis when I get some uninterrupted and extended computer time at a decent hour.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/27/08 at 2:35 am

Ben Plonie wrote: “The non-religious and non-Jews here cannot feel the outrage” about an act of desecrating the Torah.
I’m a Catholic and can feel the outrage about an act desecrating any Jewish sacred object. Firstly, I would be outraged on behalf of my fellow believers, the Jewish people. Secondly, I would be outraged as a Catholic. My mother taught Catholic Bible School (CCD) and her specialty was the Books of Israel. Her children and her students grew to know, love and revere Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, Joseph, King David. As Catholics, we believe these books contain the history of the God we serve and people He loves.

No one who truly loves and honors God could be indifferent to the deliberate sacrilege of any sacred object.

Comment by Marion (Mael Muire) on 7/27/08 at 7:15 am

Yes, Mr. Plonie, my raison d’etre is to be further insulted by you.  I can’t wait.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/27/08 at 11:25 pm

Thank you Marion. Beyond the naarative aspect of the Torah, part of the miracle and the gift of the Sinai revelation is the material embodiment of it in the form of the Torah. It is the prototypical case of the dominion of God spanning the material and the spiritual, just as in turn the practices and rituals that we perform are deemed to reach into the heavenly heights. The (Hebrew) names of God are the densest of meaningful expression, and through a series of esoteric abstractions the Torah is seen as a set of permutations of names of God. It is in a sense the mind of God. An indispensable part of the crafting of a Torah scroll is the intention of the craftsman. A Torah scroll no matter how physically perfect and beautiful that is crafted without proper intention (metaphorically by an apostate) is not sacred at all and is fit only to be burned.

Dave W., to me you are a stream of electrons in ASCII text. None of this is personal. The beauty of this medium is that it is pure ideas and expression.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/27/08 at 11:50 pm

I believe the world of Torah scribes and their outlets is relatively small, and if a Torah scroll can be purchased with only a credit card that would be through unscrupulous dealers, and I hope and assume applies only to those invalid scrolls as discussed above.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/27/08 at 11:55 pm

Oh?

I found these in a five minute search:

http://www.zerach.com/STAM/index.htm
http://tiferesjudaica.com/torah_scroll.php
http://www.mysofer.com/
http://www.sefertorah.net/
http://www.stam.net/
http://www.ajudaica.com/category/308/Torah_Scrolls_-_Sefer_Torah/

I could go on, but the point is there is a world wide market in this stuff, and they all take plastic.

Comment by The Web Guy on 7/28/08 at 12:14 am

Hey, you tell me whether this joint is “unscrupulous” or not:

http://www.ahuva.com/detail.aspx?ID=1279

$22,800 for a new Sefer Torah Scroll.  If I had a coupon, I could probably knock that down a bit…

Comment by Dave W. on 7/28/08 at 12:24 am

A cousin of mine is a Sofer (scribe), and to my knowledge he deals with retailers and customers on a one-to-one basis. He would not sell one for a non-serious or Jewishly dedicated purpose, such as to a messianic synagogue. I don’t know the whole market but as I began to say if a Sefer Torah can end up in a position to be desecrated than the system is deficient. For those of good intent, I would only say that an assumption must be made that only a buyer of good intent would buy one, just as the framers of our constitution in their day never dreamed that gay marriage was an issue that needed addressing for the future.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 2:02 am

I also wouldn’t assume that any or all of those places would sell a Sefer Torah sight unseen and without knowing the buyer and the use for it. I realize that the messianic and gay synagoges get tthere scrolls somewhere, possibly on the black market for stolen goods.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 2:09 am

And I would say that if a consecrated Communion wafer can end up in a position to be desecrated, then the Catholic system is deficient.  They’ve been worried about such a deficiency for 800 years, yet have done nothing to correct the problems.  Is that not a display of gross negligence towards what is allegedly their “most sacred” object?  Shouldn’t taking zero reasonable precautions against the desecration of a Host be considered a sacrilege itself?

(The Mormons, on the other hand, seem to know how to keep their sacred stuff sacred, with lock-and-key and a security hierarchy.  I don’t doubt that stuff leaks out, anyway, with the occassional disgruntled ex-member.)

Comment by Dave W. on 7/28/08 at 9:02 am

Maybe it is deficient going forward, although I don’t think that’s the problem here. Many synagogues installed safes, locks and alarms in response to thefts of Torah scrolls in the last couple of decades, but as you have seen they can be fenced for instrinsic value. Many scrolls have also been scanned as a computerized fingerprint for identification in case of theft.

Social gatherings, even riding a bus in Jerusalem, all depend on a modicum of good faith and good will, and a campus service for example would not be set up for anyone surreptitiously joining a service under false pretences and sabotaging it. Stealing from a collection plate or some silver and gold chachkes perhaps, but not an item of no instrinsic value.

But as I pointed out, you seem to positively dwell on the idea that the Catholics are insufficiently Christlike, bad Christians, hypocrites, now it’s poor custodians of their rituals etc. What are you trying to prove? What’s the difference? The bottom line is if you leave them alone in 21st century America they will leave you alone. So they are wrong. Big deal. They are wrong by my lights too but I don’t go around putting starch in the Pope’s pajamas, even with greater provocation than you.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 11:55 am

They don’t leave us alone.  Never have and never will.  They feel no need to leave us alone because the Bible says that they should do otherwise.  Nor do they leave be the more moderate members of their own church, or members of other faiths.  This is true of any religion for which prosetylization of the heathen is seen as a virtue.

Beyond that, I see no evidence that any Torahs are being “fenced” online.  Nor do I see any evidence that Webster Cook surreptitiously joined a service under false pretenses.  And you’re quite mistaken about what I “seem to positively dwell on.”  You’ve also made it fairly clear that you don’t care.

The real bottom line is that some people have ideas which make them a threat to the goal of having a truly equal and free society, and I’d like to see the day that such ideas are of academic interest only.  If you’d prefer to allow people to stomp all over you, that is of course your right, but you shouldn’t expect anyone to share in your bogus notion that these people become dangerous only when prodded.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/28/08 at 12:46 pm

I doubt that there is an expert on prosylitization better than an Orthodox Jew. I can’t take a commuter train for long without getting offers to share the good news. Trust me, the Catholics are not on the top ten these days.

I love your catchphrase “I see no evidence”. They must teach it in blog school. Throw it out and send the other guy to the backcourt.

When I show you the evidence you change the subject. Get the pattern? Hint - it is the one shaped by the limited blinders of a belief system, by being the unaware subject of The Matrix in which you dwell. You may consider me in the nature of a red pill. The choice to proceed is yours.

“surreptitiously joining a service under false pretences and sabotaging it.”
Simply Google Webster Cook on the news tab. The story is a little stale except for you so there is not as much stuff as, say, for almost anything else, but if you bypass the embedded opinion and look for the facts, you will find it as I have stated. This Orlando Sentinal article is pretty factual http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/07/ucf-student-who.html

“I see no evidence” that any Torahs are fenced online. You crack me up. Did you do a search for “stolen Torahs for sale”? Did you consider that items worth tens of thousands of dollars are not sold on ebay? Did you consider that stolen Torahs are obviously stolen so as to find a destination for profit? It’s irrelevant anyway. The whole thing is three steps away from the topic.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/28/08 at 4:23 pm

Mr. Plonie, I’m a skeptic above all, and don’t have time to do your homework for you.  If you wish to claim that Webster Cook joined the service under false pretenses, then it is up to you to provide such evidence.  If you fail to do so, then your claim can be dismissed as unsupported.  The article to which you linked says nothing about Cook joining Mass under false pretenses.  Nor does it say anything about him “sabotaging” the service.  This isn’t changing the subject whatsoever, it’s calling into question the claims that you’ve made.  The article says that he was part of a disturbance that he claims he didn’t start, that the stupid charges he filed were dismissed, and that the charges filed against him are being investigated.  I don’t know how you’re reading into that fraud and sabotage, and you don’t seem to care to explain.

I’d love to proceed, but when I explicitly try to, you seem to lose your “enthusiasm,” and you fail to go much of anywhere.

It simply doesn’t matter to me that some people proselytize more than others, they all really need to stop.  You’ve made yourself clear that you think this whole thing is a non-problem and people should have other priorities.  Good for you.  I understand your position.  I don’t agree with it, but you can quit re-asserting it at every opportunity.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/28/08 at 4:57 pm

It is my view that you and your interest group are the ones proselytizing here. PZ Myer is on record as promoting the ending of the influence of non-atheists, as are you here. Take some courage and allow those ideas to stand on their own merit or otherwise. It ismore than priority at stake in this, it is integrity and consistencey. My enthusiasm level has a great deal to do with the fact that the conversation is boring and fruitless to the degree of your failure to acknowledge and your deliberate overlooking of the obvious. I also see a conspicuous lack of enagagment with all of the points I have provided you. As I said, the robotic phrase ‘I see no evidence’ excuses you from doing your own homework, not mine.

I believe you and PZ Myer are confusing two issues.

One is the absolute tuth of everybody’s belief systems, and the other is the Constitutional freedom. To say that a cracker is a just cracker is like saying that one may practice medicine without a license as long as one can successfully fake it. The license and the cracker have only abstract meaning. We require some kind of common consensus on that meaning.

The other is the Constitutional rights of the freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, fredom of expression. We all know one cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and the same holds true of shouting ‘Jesus’ in a crowded synagogue or ‘atheism’ in a crowded church. Neither do you want religious vandals disrupting your own gathering of skeptics or atheists or whatever it is you may have.

For you, skepticism is obviously a one-way street. If by skeptic you mean that you doubt the reality represented by the Catholic League and the Stuent Senate without a witnessed and notarized page from Webster Cook’s confidential diary on his premeditated intentions - sorry, no can do. All we have are the accounts of the facts of the events, and our judgment of the accounts and characters of the participants.  I am also a skeptic, although not ‘above all’. I am skeptical of the accounts of Webster Cook and his accomplice in the service.

Your resistance to recognizing the repeatedly referenced undisputed facts is cloddish and unpleasant. The facts we have are these:
Wade Cook, raised Catholic, and his non-Catholic friend attended a service given by people with a reservation to do so, and the right to expect participants to participate and not disrupt the proceedings.
Cook by implication FALSELY PRETENDED to respect those requirements.
Cook represented himself as attending in an official capacity for the student government, which FALSE PRETENSE is a central factor in his impeachment by the nonsectarian student senate. “Senate leaders cut short any discussion of whether Cook was right or wrong in taking the wafer, saying they should focus on whether Cook broke Senate rules.”
Cook pro-actively and explicitly stepped up to participate in a core part of the service, in the FALSE PRETENCE of whole-hearted conformity with the proceedings.
Cook did not complete the core ritual that he knew was supremely meaningful to the sponsors of the event, thus SABOTAGING it.
When caught and confronted about this Cook lied about his actions, a FALSE PRETENSE. “Cook reportedly claimed he swallowed the wafer during the service.”
Cook also lied about his intentions for the sabotage.
Cook also lied about the nature of the threats he receieved. How do I know? Because a credible death threat is a crime and a police matter. By now, PZ Myer has revealed the source of a threat to himself, and a woman working for 1-800-Flowers who sent it on a company computer has been fired. We have only Cook’s word on threats to him, and he has not revealed any threat to the police. Hmmm.

I could go on. But if you don’t get it, you won’t get it.

By skepticism I know you mean to say truth seeking. Skepticism in the face of facts and irrefutable conclusions in context of events is detracts from the truth. There is a different stance to adopt when in doubt as opposed to when not in doubt.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/29/08 at 1:24 am

Well, Mr. Plonie, if I were to say that I’d never seen a self-described “red pill” who is as cavalier with the facts and as mistaken with inferences as you are, I’d be lying.  To any normal person, to pontificate upon the “undisputed facts,” suggest that non-agreement is “cloddish” and then immediately get Webster Cook’s name wrong would be a massive embarrassment.  If you hold true to the egotistical leader-to-enlightenment type, however, you’ll find a rationalization (50/50 shot you’ll blame me) and go about your merry way, not humbled at all.

What should be obvious is that there are some things which you find obvious that I do not, but rather than question the obviousness of them, you instead attribute the disparity to bad faith on my part.  That, coupled with the fact that you think that I should go out and find the evidence to support your claims (which would be a wild goose chase in some instances) means that you are an utter failure as a “red pill,” whether I would accept you in such a role or not.  Good for you that you had the wisdom to not compare yourself to Morpheus.

You were so close to hitting the nail on the head with your mention of premeditation, but then you proceeded to bash your thumb to a pulp.  I mean, you’re absolutely correct that we don’t have any unbiased evidence of the goings-on in the student union or of anyone’s state of mind.  We’re forced to make inferences.

However, you went too far when you called your inferences “undisputed facts.”  Both “surreptitiously joining a service under false pretences” and “sabotage” require premeditation.  You agree you have no undisputable proof of such.  Your inferences go far beyond what is warranted by concluding the worst about Webster Cook - that he intended to disrupt the services.  Your later conclusions which are based upon that conclusion can only be farther from “undisputed facts.”

You’ve based your inferences on the disputable assumption that Cook was aware that in that particular service, he would be expected to complete the “core ritual” before returning to his pew.  Cook himself disputes that “fact.”  Examples abound of this not being the case at all Catholic services, and the non-homogeneity of such services is further demonstrated by the fact that traditionalist Catholics think that receiving the Host “in the hand” is itself a sacrilege.

Furthermore, the idea that Cook falsely claimed to represent the student government is far from undisputable, as Cook himself disputes it.  I would hate to be accused of any crime with you on the jury, Mr. Plonie, because apparently in your mind being charged with an offense means that it is an “undisputable fact” that said offense was committed.

Further still, your incredulity (“Hmmm.”) at Cook’s failure to report any death threats to the police is not evidence of, nor a valid inference to, the lack of any such threats.  Dr. Myers did not file any such reports, either.  (And your understanding of the Melanie Kroll events is imprecise, at best.)

And finally, you ice the cake with yet another attempt to blame me for any and all possible disagreement.  The idea that you have presented “irrefutable conclusions” is laughable when one thing that really is obvious is your inability to distinguish undisputed facts from disputed allegations and your own (sometimes illogical) conclusions.  You have made yourself into an object of scorn by being so pompous about the truth while demonstrating your own failure to “get it.”  You probably think that I believe Cook to be innocent in all this.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/29/08 at 8:43 am

Cook is not a victim.  Cook palmed the host as a sacriligious act.  Ministers at the mass tried to get him to either consume it or give it back. He refused. This is a major offense in the eyes of the Catholic Church.  If he got pressured to give it back, so be it.

Comment by Fr. J. on 7/29/08 at 2:18 pm

I hope this incident brings back communion on the tongue only.

Comment by Fr. J. on 7/29/08 at 2:24 pm

You seem to have the story confused, Fr. J.  Michelle Ducker is not a Catholic minister.  And what, in your opinion, would be acceptable “pressure?”

Comment by Dave W. on 7/29/08 at 3:20 pm

Waitaminute, calling Webster ‘Wade’ invalidates hundreds of words of closely reasoned text? This blog software has no preview box and spell check, and I am sure that even His Eminence the Right Reverend Dawkins himself commits more typos than I do on a draft. For the sake of our youth I sincerely hope you don’t teach English in your fleeting moments stolen from cyberspace. Let’s use this opportunity to point out that atheism derives as much from from small-mindedness as anything else.

To attribute your obtuseness to to bad faith is really giving you the benefit of the doubt. The other possibilities are that it is secondary to low intelligence or some form of hysterical blindness. Your IQ appears adequate but fear-driven denial of reality (or Reality, muahahaha…) is a definite possibility. That is a matter for the professionals.

Do you think that asking you to Google the news for the more recent developments is sending you on a wild goose chase? There’s a switch. That’s what you do every time you key in “I see no evidence”, without actually troubling yourself to remove sleep mask. I assure you that the Red Pill is as efficacious as ever, as long as you are not taking a Blue Pill and calling it ‘Red’.

‘I see no evidence’ that the Cookster did premeditate the event. My example was reducio ad absudum; I offered that as a criterion I inferred you to require. An objective person would understand that. All that is necessary for my view is the undisputed facts that he crashed a private party and unapologetically and aggressively broke the house rules; hurled in the Ming vase, stubbed his cigarette out in the Persian rug, micturated in the fireplace… How many ways are there to explain this? The only thing he left out was feeding the cracker to his chihuahua. I say crashed the party because it requires no interpretation to know that he was not committed to the system and the process of the service, he was prepared if not planning to resist its requirements, and when made aware if not aware before he lied about it (smuggled it back to his seat in his mouth and took it out) and persisted in getting into people’s faces to the point of disruption. For example, long ago I helpfully pointed out to someone that they had dirt on their forehead. On Ash Wednesday. I
wasn’t confronted or assaulted. That is what could have happened to Cook if he made a mistake in good faith. You can see why nobody except you believes that.

I say that Cook misrepresented himself based on the fact that a monthlong inquiry was done by the student government and the administration, and that misrepresetation is the very basis for his discipline. I don’t have any transcripts, but the responsible bodies know that they will be accountable for their decisions and I infer that they will be successful if called to account. Mr. Cook disputes it? Woo hoo.

If you reread what I said about death threats, the operative word was CREDIBLE death threats. Myers received such but did not take them seriously, including that of Melanie Kroll. I feel safe in stating that Cook and Myer would be filing complaints in the face of any CREDIBLE threats. In the case of Cook, he actually did file a revenge complaint that the Catholics were serving alcohol to minors (sacramental wine to freshmen?). How weak. But we are not dealing with a dude too mellow to let a death threat go by.

I know you said that Cook is not entirely innocent. That is belied by your pooh-poohing his actions and magnifying those of the real aggrieved parties. Now if Cook attended the service as a commando mission for the forces of atheism, your support would be understandable. But the whole petty incident was just being used to stick it to the Catholics. Making Nathan Hale out of Webster Cook demeans Myers, you and the whole Atheist Defense League. Cook is nothing but an unpleasant young fool who saw no way out of his idiotic self-made dilemma but to be a bigger fool.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/30/08 at 10:11 am

Mr. Plonie, you wrote, “Waitaminute, calling Webster ‘Wade’ invalidates hundreds of words of closely reasoned text?”  Of course not.  I neither wrote that nor meant it.  It’s just another example of how your inferences are out of whack.  (And you get in another dig on atheism, without there being any logical connection between your poor interpreting skills and my lack of belief.  Bravo, sir.  Way to dig deep.)

How, I ask, will my re-reading the latest Webster Cook news bring me around to seeing your conclusions as correct?  Such is the problem with the “you’re ignoring the obvious” argument.  The red pill, you see, activates a tracking program through which Morpheus comes and gets you and drags you into the “real world,” thus demonstrating that everything he said was correct.  “Go read some more” isn’t “red pill” at all, it just maintains your own status, and blames me for disagreeing with you.

(And I love the “crashed a private party” crack.  Yeah, those Catholics are sooo exclusive.)

The month-long inquiry is going on right now.  Your use of the past tense is incorrect, as is your statement that he has been disciplined.  Impeachment only means that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.  Bill Clinton was impeached, but suffered no sanctions for it.

And if you read the law, it says nothing about “credible” death threats.  All of them (credible and incredible) are illegal, and if made across state lines they are a Federal offense.

Finally, Cook was indeed a fool.  But even fools have rights.  And the Catholic Campus Ministries’ Code of Ethics indicates that Cook shouldn’t have been treated as he was (treatment which nobody present seems to deny), especially since they claim to minister to people of ALL creeds, which would presumably include Catholics somewhat more lax about Communion than themselves.

The only people I wish to “stick it to” are those who lack the self-respect to stand up to their brothers-in-Christ and say, “if what Webster Cook says is true, it was wrong for him to be treated the way he was.”  The very serious problem is that I’ve only seen perhaps a handful of Catholics doing so (I’ve corresponded with one, he’s a nice guy).

Comment by Dave W. on 7/30/08 at 2:23 pm

Well you said that “getting Webster Cook’s name wrong would be a massive embarrassment” to me. Flipping one uncommon name starting with ‘W’ with another as a basis to question my comprehension or as you call them, ‘inferences’. I don’t know why that’s not a two way street - “you’re absolutely correct that we don’t have any unbiased evidence of the goings-on in the student union or of anyone’s state of mind.  We’re forced to make inferences.” I said “surreptitiously joining a service under false pretences” and “sabotage”, and proved the point with a straight read of events filtering out the opinion and persuasive pieces. There is no reason to insist he wasn’t just improvising without more than an instant of premeditation at all. You are quibbling here. The only other possibilities are that he joined the service to worship with sincerity and just became all discombobulated or was posessed by Satan. Without a basic agreement or a crystal ball (metaphor! metapohor!), all we can do is fit the facts a well as we can.

“How, I ask, will my re-reading the latest Webster Cook news bring me around to seeing your conclusions as correct?”
Remind me, what conclusion of mine are you actually disputing anymore? The story began with the pink-cheeked lad making an honest ‘Leave it to Beaver’ kind of mistake and immediately being buried carried off by a mob of rubes brandishing pitchforks. And with the rational and realistic voice of Science rallying to his defense.

What following-up has revealed (not much, actually, this is a rather small story in the larger world) is that after entering a Student Union reserved space and faking his participation (unless he was first in line he could not be in doubt about the procedure), he tried to pull rank by using his Student Government title but did not reveal his real name! We learn that he was not in fact harmed by those angry and upset people, he attempted to file a set of counter complaints unrelated to the incident that were deemed not credible and were dismissed by the non-sectarian administration. We learn that rather than being a scientific voice of reason and a fighter for justice, PZ Myers is an activist ANTITHEIST rather than a neutral atheist, quickly dropping the Cook case to attack his real target, religious symbols.

Your citerion is “if what Webster Cook says is true, it was wrong for him to be treated the way he was.” Cook may have a case or a piece of one, but he does not appear to merit the benefit of any doubts regarding his veracity. As stated, based on what we know, I am skeptical about what he says. I am skeptical about PZ Myers’ agenda. I am skeptical about the degree of accuracy your reading of this has as opposed to mine. Regarding again the death threats, you have now come full circle and indirectly cast doubt upon the existence of these alleged threats by the failure of Cook to take any action on these crimes, especially in the face of his other more ineffectual actions. According to you, Cook would not need any more than the verifiable record of these threats to find and punish the perps. But so far we have only Cook’s word on them, another conclusion based upon recent events or non-events, as the case may be.

I have just learned of a 9 year old boy in Alabama receiving death threats for shooting a record half ton nine-plus foot wild boar hog with a .50 cal handgun. He is being threatened with decapitation, probably by animal lovers and vegetarians. What does this tell us about people, society or religion?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/30/08 at 5:02 pm

Mr. Plonie, you didn’t prove your points.  Your conclusions rested upon a shaky premise, a premise that you have done nothing to solidify.

And I didn’t point out your screw-up of Cook’s name as a basis for your failed inferences, I pointed it out as yet another example of your carelessness for the “undisputed facts” that you’re so concerned about.  You made a mockery of yourself.

And you’re continuing to make yourself ridiculous with your overblown “pitchforks” strawman, assuming that Cook is guilty of the charges against him before the investigation has been completed, and bizarrely stating that I’ve wavered in my position regarding the death threats.  I’ll do you the favor of not guessing about your motivations for these lapses in reason, but you’re surely not living up to your own hype.

What do death threats against a nine-year-old tell us about society or religion?  Nothing.  They tell us that some people don’t know how to get along with others who don’t agree with their ideals.  Some “animal lovers” have made it clear that they can’t get along with humans at all, so death threats are in character for them (and their less-intense bretheren only rarely shame them, too).  Catholics, on the other hand, have a big book they’re supposed to consult in such cases, which tells them in no uncertain terms that they are in no place to judge others.

Comment by Dave W. on 7/30/08 at 8:09 pm

The truth it is you who appears ridiculous. I have patiently reviewed and explained and spoonfed you the whole thing. My premise is that this story has simple outlines which PZ Myers stretched beyond probablility and common sense, just to get in a first-strike while the facts were not known, before anyone other than Cook was talking.

The issue of proof in this story is the strawman; there is no proof that you would accept. I could not prove it to you if I flew out to Florida and waterboarded Webster Cook to get the truth. And proof is not an issue for you since you make it up as you go along anyway.

The pitchfork mnetaphor is intended to refer to your demonization of everyone in the incident except for Cook in a compact way. I just happened to flash on that scene in the Frankenstein movie with Boris Karloff. For you it would be what - ‘Life of Brian’? “Big Bird Rides the Subway’?

The death threats against the nine-year-old tell us what human beings are capable of when they act without due consideration. As a non-Christian I agree that the Christian standards are too demanding in human terms, and that’s why I don’t expect them all to conduct cheek-slapping-and-turning practice sessions. In 1998-9 or so I used to like to link to a story about thousands of Zen Buddhist monks rioting for control of the Chogye temple in Seoul, SK to gain control over the $10M budget and the lucrative tourist business.
“Shielding themselves with panels of wood, the attackers reached the first floor, but were beaten back by a rain of stones, petrol bombs, hoses and fire extinguishers.” This in response to lightweight theologians who would say that Jews should be more Buddhistic (they call them JuBu’s, probably the best Buddhists there are. Oh well, mustn’t gloat)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/472155.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981202/ai_n14202867

But here you are saying the same thing. That’s how people are. Your complaints have a ‘neener, neener, neener’ quality to them, showing up the Catholics as hypocrites, dare I say Pharisees although I know better, and framing it in humanitarian and civil rights terms. You say Cook (‘even fools’) had rights? Not to break the rules in that place and time.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/31/08 at 9:26 am

check spam, that filter is a mystery to me.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/31/08 at 9:26 am

Once again, Mr. Plonie, your care for the facts is missing.  (1) PZ Myers responded only after Bill Donohue called for Cook’s expulsion.  (2) Since proof is unavailable, I’ve never expressed an interest in it.  (3) Your alleged metaphor misses its target by mistaking the direction of my ire.  (4) I never claimed that Cook had a right to break the rules, he had a right to be free from assault.

Furthermore, I wasn’t looking at this whole thing in civil rights terms until yesterday, when the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy issued a press release which frames what Dr. Myers did in civil rights terms.  They’ve gone completely overboard by claiming that it is unconstitutional to ridicule someone else’s religious beliefs.

And the funniest thing you’ve said to date is that I’m making stuff up as I go along.  My position hasn’t changed one bit, while your misunderstandings of it have been all over the place.  Which one of us pretends that 2,500-year-old make-believe is real, anyway?

Comment by Dave W. on 8/01/08 at 8:57 am

By the way: naughty Buddhists. Stupidly naughty.

But why would anyone expect Jews to be peaceful?

Comment by Dave W. on 8/01/08 at 9:01 am

Why does a Jew care so much about Communion wafers, or Christianity?  The writer of this article is Jewish, and many Jews today are either aethist or Reform. Not that it matters, Judaism has no business deciding or even commenting on what is holy or fulfilling vis a vis Christian practise of faith.

Comment by EG on 8/04/08 at 8:51 am

I checked back today and glad to find your updates. “He is preaching to his choir” - I think you’ve reached the point of Myer’s whole philosophy.

Comment by sdtraveller on 2/22/09 at 9:07 pm

. The story here is not about death threats but about provocation and baiting to the point that people lose their tempers. That doesn’t work well even for teenagers, in adults it is just evidence of unresolved emotional problems. Point being that people like Myers have no positive point of view or program that does not involve putting down others.

Comment by college diploma frames on 5/30/09 at 8:46 am

People still admire the work of Pandora in her pandora jewelry s. Pandora Burnet�s mother was a publicity writer for movies, and her father was a movie theatre manager.

Comment by Nicole Thompsen on 10/22/09 at 2:06 am

college diploma frames has not spoken the truth.

college diploma frames has not looked at the data objectively.

As for “positive” views—define that term. What is positive? What is not?

Besides, I can give a very good example of a positive point of view PZ Myers has: He views education as one of the most important factors in life, enough to become a teacher himself. He ranks very high with his students, who have yet to identify him as someone who puts down others.

This proves that college diploma frames has misrepresented Dr. Myers most egregiously.

So cough up an apology or stfu, college diploma frames aka LIAR.

Comment by åqua on 12/06/09 at 5:19 am

This is why 1.1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’”
<br>
Most Protestants believe that the bread and wine offered by the Catholic priest in the Holy Mass are only symbols of Christ’s body and blood. They do not believe that Christians have to actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to have eternal life. They do not believe that Christ’s flesh is actual food, and His blood actual drink. Why, then, does Jesus repeatedly say in these verses that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us? Why does Christ say that His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed, if His flesh and blood really aren’t food and drink indeed? This teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist is the most profound in all of Scripture, and these verses are very problematic to the Protestant contention that the bread and wine of the Mass are just symbols.
<br>
When John 6 is prayerfully read, we see how Jesus gradually teaches the faithful about the life-giving bread from heaven that He will give to the world (through the multiplication of the loaves, the reference to the raining manna given to the Israelites, and finally to the bread that Jesus will give which is His flesh). When the Jews question Jesus about how he could possibly give them His flesh to eat, Jesus becomes more literal in His explanation.  Jesus says several times that we must eat (in Greek, “phago”) His flesh to gain eternal life (which literally means “to chew”).
<br>
When the Jews further question the strangeness of His teaching, Jesus uses an even more literal verb (in Greek, “trogo”) to describe how we must eat His flesh to have eternal life (which literally means “to gnaw or crunch”). The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (Matt. 24:38; John 13:18) and it is always used literally (physically eating). Protestants are unable to provide a single example of where “trogo” is ever used in a symbolic sense. To drive His point home, Jesus says that His flesh is real food indeed, and His blood is real drink indeed (Jesus says nothing about the bread being a symbol of His body and blood).
<br>
What is perhaps most compelling about the foregoing passages is what happens at the end of Jesus’ discourse. We know that the Jews understood Jesus as speaking literally. This is demonstrated by their question, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” They could not conceive of why consuming Jesus’ flesh was life-giving and how they could possibly do such a thing. We also know that Jesus responds to their question by being even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But we learn at the end of Jesus’ discourse that many of His followers, because of the difficulty of His teaching, decided to no longer follow Him – and Jesus let them go. Then He turned to His apostles and asked them, “Will you also go away?”
<br>
Would Jesus, the Incarnate Word of God who became man to save humanity, allow his followers to leave Him if they misunderstood His teaching? Of course not, especially when the teaching regarded how they were to obtain eternal life which was at the heart of Jesus’ mission. Jesus always explained the meaning of His teachings to His disciples. Mark 4:34. Jesus did not say, “Hey, guys, come back here, you got it all wrong.” He didn’t do this because they did not have it all wrong. They understood correctly – we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life within us. The Protestant who contends that the Catholic offering of bread and wine in the Mass is just a symbol (and does not miraculously become the body and blood of Christ through the actions of the priest acting “in persona Christi”) must address John 6:53-58, 66-67 – why Jesus used the words He did, and why Jesus allowed His followers to leave Him if they understood Him correctly (which is the only time in Scripture where Christ allows His disciples to leave Him based upon a doctrinal teaching).
<br>
When we meditate upon this mystery with an open mind and heart, we come to believe and know that the Eucharist is the way the Father gives us His Son in the eternal covenant of love by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation. If we can believe in the Incarnation (that God become a little baby), than believing that God makes Himself substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine is easy. The Church has thus taught for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith – the consummation of the sacrificed Paschal lamb, by which we are restored to God and share in His divine life. Thus, Saint Paul says, “our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed; therefore, let us celebrate the feast.” 1 Corinthians 5:7-8.
<br>
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
<br>
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Comment by Alan on 11/08/10 at 9:42 pm

This clarifies the seriousness of this ritual to its adherents and the degree to which it ought to be respected by others.

For the rest of us except for closed-minded obsessives like Dave W. and P.Z. Myers who walks in darkness and likes it that way, there is much Jewish stuff in Christianity as filtered through a Greco-Roman lens but it is not a two way street.

The Greek chorus of buffoons who are the Pharisees in the New Testament cannot be used as examples of Jewish thought. They are there only as straight men for Jesus’ one-liners.

Neither can the Temple service under Herod and his henchmen the literal-minded Saduceean priests.

Here is what I believe is the origin of the flesh and blood and eucharist thing. In its origin in an agricultural society, the sacrificial system involved a degree of identification of the offerer with the animal, particularly considering that the animal was of the finest and without blemish; those offering were all familiar with the story of the offering of Cain.

In the absence of the Temple, we are instructed to offer the ‘bulls’ of our lips, meaning sincere holistic prayer in which our spirit is postively influenced and permantnly changed. On special occasions we have instituted fast days (which for Jews prohibits drinking as well), which is intended to offer of our own substance, that is of our own flesh and fats and blood,.

Moving on down, Jews are taught that every table is an alter (an educated Jew will not sit on a table for example) and the food upon it is a sacrifice that cannot be taken without an appropriate blessing (‘bulls of our lips’, or in the words quoted ‘the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word’). In the elevated sense, the food is a justification for the blessings rather than the other way around.

Anyone with an authentic Jewish education can recognize various such NT teachings if we understand such terms as ‘Son of man’ and ‘me’ to refer to every individual, but distorted over the decades and centuries by means of playing telephone via translations from Hebrew through Aramaic and pidgin Greek and then Roman on down; and bearing in mind that inner cabbalistic and meditative techniques are not only wasted on most people but subject to misinterpretation and distorion. A proof is easily found in those writings of the Church fathers who appear clueless so soon after the fact.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/09/10 at 4:55 am

Obsessive, Ben?  I’d forgotten all about this until emails alerted me to the latest two comments here.  Emails to an account I hadn’t bothered to check in over a week.  “Crackergate” was over two years ago, but you can’t seem to let it go.

I’ll leave you to your discussion of how the Emperor’s New Clothes have been badly described by the Greeks, Romans, etc.  I just don’t see them at all, which is why I find it hard to respect rituals based upon the cut of the lapels or the shininess of the buttons, no matter how serious the adherents seem to be.

Comment by Dave W. on 11/13/10 at 7:45 am

Ben,
I think the understanding of “Son of Man” was a basis for disagreement among Jews even during Jesus’ time. Though the correct understanding can not be proven as fact, but it is rather a matter of faith because the term can be shown to have different meanings depending on the author.
However, the Letter to the Hebrews contains what may be considered a genuine commentary on the actions and words of Christ at the last supper. This statement may be surprising at first, since the author of the Letter to the Hebrews does not seem to make explicit and direct reference to the last supper.

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews is the only writer in the New Testament who attributes to Christ the titles of “priest” – or, rather, “high priest” – and of “mediator of the New Covenant.” The author, as a Jew steeped in Old Testament thought, in fact reinterprets the salvific action of Christ in the context of two important events or ceremonies from the past: the inauguration of the first covenant by Moses on Mount Sinai, and the ceremony of the purification of the people from their sins carried out each year by the Levitical high priest on the great Day of Expiation, Kippur.

Both of the ceremonies were based on animal sacrifice. In the first, Moses ratified God’s covenant with the people of Israel by sprinkling the people with the blood from the sacrificial victims, and pronouncing the words “Behold the blood of the covenant” (Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:18-22).

In the second ceremony, on the other hand, the high priest, after sacrificing the victims, took their blood and entered alone into the sanctuary – the “Holy of Holies” – where he sprinkled the blood, thus carrying out the expiation of the sins of the people (Leviticus 16; Hebrews 9:6-10). But according to what our author says, “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), and therefore these sacrifices remained ineffective, not capable of giving the desired access to God, blocked by the awareness of sin (Hebrews 9:6-10).

The author of the letter to the Hebrews, in any case, found in the Scriptures the foretelling of:

a new priest – “The Lord has sworn and will not waver: ‘Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever’ (Psalm 110:4);
a new sacrifice – “Sacrifice and offering you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require; so I said, ‘Here I am; your commands for me are written in the scroll. To do your will is my delight” (Psalm 40:7-9);
a new covenant – “The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers. For I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
He saw Christ as this new priest, who would offer a new sacrifice consisting of his own body, thus inaugurating a new covenant.
So then, summing up the substance of his teaching, he says: “But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be [. . .] he entered once for all into the sanctuary [of heaven], not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. [. . .] The blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, [will] cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant” (Hebrews 9:11-15).
At this point we must pose a question. Where in the life of Christ could our author have seen him in the role of high priest, in the act of offering a sacrifice for the expiation of sins, and, at the same time, in the role of mediator of the new covenant in the act of inaugurating this covenant? In all probability, at the Last Supper, where Christ had pronounced the words: “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
In fact, in saying the words “This is my blood of the covenant,” Christ manifested himself as the mediator of a covenant founded on his own blood, and therefore counterposed to the one inaugurated by Moses with the words “Behold the blood of the covenant” (Exodus 24:8).
In adding the words “shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins,” he was implying that the covenant that he was inaugurating was precisely the New Covenant proclaimed by Jeremiah, in which the remission of sins would be assured: “For I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sin no more” (31:34).
Moreover, the words: “my blood shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins” – where the idea of a sacrifice for the expiation of the sins of the people is extremely clear – could not have helped but remind our author of the sacrifice offered by the Levitical high priest on the great Day of Expiation.
With the death of Jesus after this and his ascension into the invisibility of heaven – “He entered once for all into the sanctuary” (Hebrews 9:12) – the author would have been struck by the parallel with the action of the Levitical high priest, who after immolating the victims entered into the invisibility of the earthly sanctuary in order to carry out the expiation of sins by sprinkling the sacrificial blood.
We can therefore affirm that the last supper was precisely the moment in Christ’s life in which the author of the Letter to the Hebrews could have recognized him as the new high priest, and, at the same time, as mediator of the New Covenant.
The words of Jesus over the chalice alone would have been sufficient for this. While the words over the bread – “This is my body” – must have reminded the author of the prophecy of the Psalms, of a new kind of sacrifice in contrast with the sacrifices of the Old Covenant: “you did not want sacrifice or offering, but a body you have prepared for me. Behold, I come to do your will, O God” (Psalm 40:7-9).
The author of the letter, in fact, comments in this regard: “By this ‘will’, we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).
Finally, the bread and wine of the last supper, the same gifts offered by Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), would only have confirmed for our author that the new priest, by manifesting himself in the offering of his body at supper, was precisely – in fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 110:4 – the priest “like Melchizedek.”
In conclusion, we can say that when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews – in the heart of his epistle, in verses 11-15 of chapter 9 – speaks of the manifestation of Christ as the new high priest, through the offering of himself to God for the purification of the sins of the people, and, at the same time, as mediator of the New Covenant, he is referring to the words and actions of Jesus at the last supper.
The words immediately following confirm this: “For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant (diathéke): since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now where there is a will (diathéke), the death of the testator must be established. For a will (diathéke) takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive. Thus not even the first covenant (diathéke) was inaugurated without blood” (Hebrews 9:15-18).
In these verses, the author is playing on the double meaning of the Greek word “diathéke,” used in the version of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word “berith,” covenant, while in contemporary Greek it meant a will.
He is, in fact, using an example taken from everyday life. Just as a “diathéke,” a will, becomes valid only at the death of the testator, so also the “diathéke,” the covenant proclaimed by Jesus, had to be followed by his death for its ratification, just as the first covenant was dedicated with the sprinkling of the blood of the victims.
But beyond having in common the same Greek word “diathéke,” a covenant and a will have something else in common: the concept of an inheritance.
Under the first covenant, the inheritance coincided with the possession of the land of Canaan. But under the New Covenant, the inheritance becomes the possession of the kingdom of God. Therefore, we find Christ who at the last supper manifests himself not only in the roles of priest and mediator of a New Covenant, but also in the role of testator who gives his apostles the promise of possessing the kingdom of God: “I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father” (Matthew 26:29; Luke 22:29-30).
Therefore, our author had grounds for saying: “For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant (diathéke): since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15).
As the result of our study, we can affirm that the last supper was:
a sacrifice in which Christ “offered himself to God” (Hebrews 9:14) for the remission of sins;
the promulgation of the New Covenant by Christ;
the disposition of a will, in which Jesus left in “eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15) to his disciples the kingdom of his Father (Matthew 26:29; Luke 22:29-30).
For all three reasons, his death on the cross inevitably had to follow. All of the words and actions of Christ at the last supper were, in fact, predicated on their fulfillment in his death, without which they would have had no meaning or value.
But the death of Jesus did not have to be the end of his work of redemption. Just as, in fact, the culminating moment of the ceremony on the day of expiation was the entry of the Levitical high priest with the sacrificial blood into the earthly sanctuary in order to bring to fulfillment the expiation of sins, so also Christ in his ascension entered into the heavenly sanctuary “that he might now appear before God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24), “thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). Precisely because Christ “through the eternal spirit offered himself” (Hebrews 9:14), his sacrifice has an eternal efficacy, and He remains “high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 6:20).
We therefore have, we might say, a “Day of Expiation” that lasts forever, to which the author refers when he says: “The blood of Christ [will] cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God” (Hebrews 9:14). And again: “Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the [heavenly] sanctuary, and since we have ‘a great priest over the house of God’, let us approach . . .” (Hebrews 10:19-22).
On another occasion, the author speaks of Christians as a people who have approached “Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and God the judge of all, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood” (Hebrews 12:22-24). The “blood of Jesus” is for our author an overarching symbol indicating the fruits of the redemption, meaning those goods to which Christians have access, an access that from the context of these passages can be seen as referring to the Eucharistic celebration.
The enduring redemptive work of Christ, which the author of the letter to the Hebrews expresses with the symbol of the continual sprinkling with his blood, can be found expressed in another way in the liturgical prayer in which it is stated that every time the Mass is celebrated, “the work of our redemption is carried out” (cf. “Presbyterorum Ordinis” 13). In the passages referred to above, we can also note that, during the Eucharistic celebration, Christians in a certain way seem to transcend the boundaries of this world and approach, by means of Christ, God and the heavenly world.
Finally, the Eucharist is also a sacrificial banquet, to which our author refers in saying: “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Hebrews 13:10). St. Paul clarifies the meaning of these words when, in the first Letter to the Corinthians (10:14-22), he compares the Eucharist to both the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament (Leviticus 7), and to those of the pagans, affirming that eating sacrificial flesh necessarily implies entering into communion (koinonía) with the divinity to which the sacrifice has been offered. He therefore prohibits Christians from participating in the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharistic table, and, at the same time, continuing to participate in the sacrificial meals of the pagans.
John, in his Gospel, further develops the Pauline concept of the communion with the body and blood of Christ, saying, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me” (6:56-57). By eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, the Christian is assumed into the communion of life of the Father and the Son, right now, on this earth. It seems that this is the same concept that the author of the letter to the Hebrews is trying to express when he says – in the context of the Eucharistic celebration, using the language of the Old Testament – that Christians approach, through Christ, the heavenly sanctuary and the presence of God.
This study on the teaching of the New Testament concerning the Eucharistic celebration shows us how great and profound is the mystery that it contains. The Eastern fathers rightly called it “sacrificium tremendum.”
It is clear that the manner in which the Eucharist is celebrated – the “ars celebrandi” – must always be in harmony with its true substance, and must fully reflect this to the participants. This is, in fact, the main preoccupation of Benedict XVI, and must also be the preoccupation of all the pastors of the Church, bishops and priests, in a particular way during the Year for Priests now in progress, since, as Vatican Council II reminds us, “Priests exercise their sacred function especially in the Eucharistic worship” (Lumen Gentium 28).

Comment by Alan on 11/13/10 at 10:54 am

If you notice, Dave, I haven’t been back here for two years either, and was addressing a post unrelated to any of your discussions. Although I had no doubt that in your blithe, uncaring and non-obsessive manner you couldn’t resist the bait. Unlike you and other annoying types, I respect the rituals not so much as the feelings of those observing them, as long as they are not bugging me and mine personally.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/13/10 at 10:34 pm

Sorry, Alan. In my post I said ‘for the rest of us’. The Eucharist can mean whatever you and the author of Hebrews think it means or want it to mean. I am speaking as a classically oriented Jew. The bottom line on all that is that if there was important information for us in what you say, than we would have heard it long ago from sources we accept and trust who did not shy away from discussing and transmitting any and all such information letting the chips fall where they may. They largely never heard of the interpretations you are relying upon and did not agree with any they did hear. But we may agree to live and let live on those issues.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/13/10 at 10:56 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories